[NTLUG:Discuss] IP idemnification - a concern?

[Fred James]

Robert Citek wrote:

>
> Saw this on another list and was just wondering if this is a  
> legitimate concern, fear mongering, or extortion?
>
> <quote>
> Q.  What is intellectual property (IP) indemnification as it relates  
> to software?
> A.  IP indemnification is about software makers protecting their  
> customers from legal costs and damages suffered as a result of  
> litigation brought on by IP infringement — a lawsuit filed against  
> the software user for violation of a patent, trade secret, copyright,  
> or trademark. But to truly assess the risk involved, users need to  
> consider a broader view of IP indemnification. They need to consider  
> a vendor's IP management practices, including
> indemnification; internal IP management processes; how the vendor  
> engages in IP protection; and the vendor's IP trade practices. While  
> it's tempting to equate IP indemnification as an issue between  
> conventionally licensed software versus open source software, that's  
> definitely not the case. Users should examine the indemnification  
> policies of every software vendor because any vendor may do a good or  
> poor job of protecting its customers.
> </quote>
>
>   http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/9/1/d911a75c- 
> deda-4531-8660-ff2daab6dc6d/IDCConnect.pdf
>
> I would imagine an IT manager's reaction would be, "we can't use Open  
> Source because it might expose us to IP litigation."  Is that an  
> accurate conclusion?
>
> Regards,
> - Robert
>
Robert Citek
The quoted material specifically says the danger of poor protection (IP 
indemnification) is not directly related to either type of software 
("conventionally licensed software versus open source software"), and 
that the "Users should examine the indemnification  policies of every 
software vendor because any vendor may do a good or  poor job of 
protecting its customers."

That said, and admitting that I am not an expert witness, the legal 
quick sand suggested by "costs and damages suffered as a result of  
litigation brought on by IP infringement" is probably all of the above 
("legitimate concern, fear mongering, or extortion"), as well as the 
standard "buyer beware" cautioning.  The document source might suggest 
that MS does a good job of protecting its customers, or it might suggest 
that the "Users should examine the indemnification  policies of every 
software vendor because any vendor may do a good or  poor job of 
protecting its customers."

Interesting, isn't it?
Regards
Fred James